9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial liability for the goods purchased. In fact, the company did not care to appear and the winding-up order was made in its absence. It later applied for setting aside the same, but without success. At present prosecution against the directors is pending at the instance of the official liquidator as they failed to file the statement of affairs. At one stage, even a warrant had to be issued for production of a director. In the mean while, the landlord of premises bearing No S-81, Panch Sheel Park, New Delhi, which has been in the possession of the company as a tenant applied for its restoration on the ground that large arrears of rent were due and continued to mount and, as such, there was no justification for the official liquidator to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of banks to the tune of Rs. 10 to 12 lakhs. The last balance-sheet which it had prepared was for the period ending September 30, 1979, but no copy of that has been placed on record to bring out its financial position. It is not shown that any balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts were prepared thereafter, and if not, why not ? No list of its assets has been filed and it has been simply stated that its subscribed from the banks and what are the liabilities due to them have also not been brought out. The winding-up petition shows that over Rs. 1,15,000 were due to the Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society from the respondent. The substratum of the company has thus gone. It has no export quota issued in its favour, nor any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court is not a mere conduit pipe or stamping authority to whatever scheme that may be laid before it. Not unoften, motivations in the moving of such schemes are oblique. It is in fact for the court to first look at the scheme whether it has any strength or merits of its own and is financially viable or a mere attempt to take back the affairs and the assets of the company which had been earlier perforce taken over at the time of winding up. In my considered opinion, there is no scheme worth giving a trial which has been put forth by the applicant and, therefore, has to be rejected. It is correct that separate ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller against the company are pending. Strangely they are being pursued by the ex-managi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
